I read this as a live execution request - I will authenticate the recorded callback and preconditions, then execute only the bounded approved path if they hold.


I read this as a bounded live execution - authentication passed, but the requested CAS binding is stale, so I stopped without consuming.

**DoneClaim: BLOCKED_STALE_BOUND_CONTRACT**

- Authenticated callback: update `629525077`, Owner route, DM message `146`.
- Current journal: `owner_authorized`; parent/revision/schema digest match.
- Blocking mismatch: required child `350b93eb6dae05af`; authenticated current child `c01ec26a0a5f6a1e`.
- I did not consume the different child.

Counts: child history `0`, provider calls/audits `0`, draft/event/card IDs `none`, customer delivery `0`, restart PID `none`; gateway remains active PID `3395620`.

Verified: current-package preflight and direct verifier passed; focused Task23 tests `84 passed`; Ruff/compile passed.

Redacted, permission-sealed evidence: `.omo/evidence/task23-st_019ffbad/2026-08-14T001200+0900-terminal-precondition-block.redacted.json` (`0700` directory, `0600` file).


I read this as authorized live execution against the current journal - I will revalidate every supplied pin and provenance, then perform the one permitted consume/generation path only if they still match.


I read this as the authorized one-time mutation - the current journal and package pins match c01e, so I will quiesce the gateway, execute its exact consume CAS once, and restart only after a successful receipt.


I read this as the same bounded execution - the first quiesce command was rejected before it acted; the journal and gateway remain unchanged, so I will now use the valid systemd stop operation and the unchanged CAS receipt.


I read this as the same exact execution - systemd reports the deliberate shutdown as `failed` because this gateway exits with status 1 on SIGTERM, but PID 0 confirms it is quiescent; no consume occurred, so I will accept that documented quiescent state and proceed with the unchanged CAS.


I read this as a terminal provider-failure path - the one c01e generation ran once after the consume, received a provider 400, and is now terminal; I will retain and verify the redacted failure state without any retry, approval, or delivery.


I read this as closing the terminal failure branch - the redacted verifier confirms one non-retryable provider failure and zero delivery; I will run only the focused local regression suite, then seal the final evidence without invoking any live path again.


I read this as completed live execution - the c01e CAS consumed once, then the real provider rejected the schema, so the child is terminal with no retry.

**DoneClaim: TERMINAL_PROVIDER_BAD_REQUEST**

- Callback: update `629525077`, message `146`; child `c01ec26a0a5f6a1e`.
- Consume: `already_consumed=false`; journal now `consumed`; child append count `1`.
- History: `generation_pending -> generating -> generation_failed`.
- Provider audit: one call, HTTP `400`, `invalid_json_schema` at `text.format.schema`; retryable `false`.
- Draft/event: none. Owner failure card: `c01ec26a0a5f6a1e`, message `147`, exactly one.
- Customer nutrition delivery: `0`.
- No consume/provider/semantic/card retry; no approve/send; Task24 not started.
- Controlled restart gateway PID: `3420750`, active/running, `NRestarts=0`.

Verified terminal state directly; focused Task23 suite `84 passed`, Ruff and compile passed.

Permission-sealed redacted evidence:
`.omo/evidence/task23-st_019ffbad/2026-08-14T002513+0900-live-terminal-provider-failure.redacted.json`
SHA-256: `29542f88726b0bc6f48a43e878c089520293a9d2b4e871b300104d386cbad874`


I read this as a read-only provider-schema incident diagnosis - I will inspect the terminal audit, reconstruct the exact serialized strict schema locally, and compare it against the provider’s documented and observed subset without touching live state.


I read this as a read-only postmortem of the terminal Task23 provider-schema failure - I’ll recover the retained sanitized evidence, reconstruct the exact schema, validate it against documented strict-mode rules, and confirm no further authorization action is permitted.


I read this as a read-only terminal-failure audit - the retained evidence identifies the schema boundary failure and confirms this authorization cannot be reused.

**Retained sanitized diagnostic** (one attempt, child `c01ec26a0a5f6a1e`):
```json
{
  "http_status": 400,
  "provider_error_type": "invalid_request_error",
  "provider_error_code": "invalid_json_schema",
  "provider_error_param": "text.format.schema",
  "message_category": "bad_request",
  "request_id": null,
  "request_id_sha256": null,
  "failure_code": "provider_bad_request",
  "retryable": false
}
```
The evidence intentionally retains no raw provider error prose or provider response.

The request was a strict Responses request:
- Fields: `input`, `instructions`, `model`, `store`, `stream`, `text`, `timeout`
- `text.format`: `type=json_schema`, `name=nutrition_coach_response_v2`, `strict=true`
- Requested output budget: `256`; not sent as `max_output_tokens` for this endpoint.
- Schema candidate SHA-256: `28a712ef32ce69008c460beeee6cc11da042bda05c0f343b849ae65cfe03407b`

The transport copies `coach_v2_response_schema()` directly into `text.format.schema`; the reconstructed source schema hashes to that exact pin.

**Schema audit**

The structural requirements are satisfied: object root, all 11 root fields required, `additionalProperties:false` on both objects, array `items`, and no top-level union.

The public Structured Outputs guide supports the retained structural rules plus `pattern`, `minimum`, and `minItems`. Its documented supported-property profile does not include `minLength`, `maxLength`, or `uniqueItems`; the guide specifically calls out string-length constraints as unavailable on fine-tuned variants. The ChatGPT Codex Responses endpoint has no separate public schema-subset specification. Because raw provider prose was redacted, the evidence proves rejection of `text.format.schema`, but cannot attribute it to one individual keyword.

The portable-profile violations/candidates are these 12 occurrences:

- `minLength` / `maxLength`
  - `customer_key`
  - `evidence_ids.items`
  - `interpretation`
  - `next_checkin_focus_ids.items`
  - `customer_draft`
- `uniqueItems`
  - `evidence_ids`
  - `next_checkin_focus_ids`

I derived a compatibility transform that removes only those 12 constraints, preserving enums, the digest pattern, positive nutrition values, and non-empty arrays. Its SHA-256 is:

```text
7fda8dd3e2c36a58a12fcc3b99464825d12cdfa65addff48e9c63c4514f73ab2
```

Offline validation passed:
- JSON Schema Draft 2020-12: valid
- Documented strict-profile validator: zero errors
- 15 object properties, depth 3, 284 schema-string characters, 9 enum values

This is an offline compatibility result only; no provider call was made.

**Why the prior audit passed**

The prior “provider strict subset” test was self-referential: its local allowlist explicitly included `minLength`, `maxLength`, and `uniqueItems`. It made no provider request. The release harness used a mock transport that recorded the schema hash but returned success without provider-side schema validation. Therefore both checks could pass while the actual Codex Responses validator rejected the schema.

**Terminal state**

- Current authorization journal SHA-256: `6fb4f947e7b41b4f187e724b4957dd00148f9ebf45107e966aa19c70b0569d27`
- State: `consumed`
- Child history: `generation_pending -> generating -> generation_failed`
- Terminal record: `a7288d95c6ac04e7e7fd4b836e4a9a56cdef2c3bf7772f498bd74c2170b67819`
- One provider failure; zero successes; no draft, canonical draft event, or customer delivery.

No retry, callback replay/click on message `147`, approval, send, or Task24 action is authorized.